Misplaced Pages

talk:WikiProject Conservatism: Difference between revisions - Misplaced Pages

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Browse history interactively← Previous editContent deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 20:48, 21 July 2012 editCollect (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers47,160 edits →Be careful with classifying parties as 'conservative' in non-western contexts: I fail to see the reason for your iterated queries at all← Previous edit Latest revision as of 12:22, 7 January 2025 edit undo89.242.145.133 (talk) →Technical problems? Just approach me!: ReplyTag: Reply 
Line 1: Line 1:
{{Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Conservatism/tabs|This=11}} {{WikiProject banner shell|
{{WikiProject Conservatism}}
{{Skip to talk}}
{{CNSV Talkpages}}
{{oldmfd|result=keep|votepage=Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Conservatism|date=7 October 2011}}
{{tmbox
|text= '''Welcome to the ] for ]'''</br> Here you can find discussions, notices, and requests for articles that in some way deal with conservatism. If you would like to discuss, place a notice about, or if you have a request about, an article within the scope of this project, please do include it here.
|image=none
|imageright={{Ombox/Shortcut|WT:RIGHT}}
|style=text-align:center;
}} }}
{{central|text=all ] talk pages redirect here, except for '']''.}}
{{Warning|This project does not extol any point of view, political or otherwise, <br/>other than that of a neutral documentarian.}}
{{FAQ|collapsed=no}}
{{todo|target=WP:WikiProject Conservatism}}
{{WikiProject Conservatism|class=Project|importance=NA|small=yes}}
{{Auto archiving notice|bot=MiszaBot II|age=1|units=months|small=yes|dounreplied=yes}}
{{User:MiszaBot/config {{User:MiszaBot/config
|archiveheader = {{talkarchivenav}} |archiveheader = {{aan}}
|maxarchivesize = 75K |maxarchivesize = 100K
|counter = 7 |counter = 13
|minthreadsleft = 5
|algo = old(30d)
|minthreadstoarchive = 1
|algo = old(60d)
|archive = Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Conservatism/Archive %(counter)d |archive = Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Conservatism/Archive %(counter)d
}}
{{Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Conservatism/header}}
{{clear}}
{{WPX action box2|color={{{2|#086}}}|content=
'''{{large|Have a question?}}'''
{{Clickable button 2|url={{fullurl:Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Conservatism|action=edit&section=new}}|Just ask|class=mw-ui-progressive mw-ui-block}}

'''{{large|Archives}}'''
{{search box
|root=Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Conservatism/Archive
|noslash=yes
|search-break=yes}}
{{Clickable button 2|Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject_Conservatism/banners|Banners|class=mw-ui-block}}
}} }}
]
{{archives|search=yes}}
{{shortcut|WT:RYT}}
__TOC__
Welcome to the '''Discussion page''' for WikiProject Conservatism. Here you can find discussions, notices, and requests for articles that deal with conservatism. If you would like to discuss, place a notice about, or if you have a request about, an article within the scope of this project, please include it here. Note that posting here in order to try to ] editors with a particular political point of view is contrary to the intent of this project. Make sure to keep up-to-date on happenings at the project {{Clickable button 2|Watch|url={{fullurl:Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Conservatism|action=watch}}|style=line-height: 1.5em; padding: 0 1em 0 1em}}


== ] FAR ==


__TOC__
I have nominated ] for a ]. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets ]. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are ]. -- ] <sup>]</sup> 17:39, 8 July 2012 (UTC)
:This looks headed toward being delisted. &ndash; ] <sup>(])</sup> 07:30, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

== Taxmageddon ==

On the ] article I've ] and it would be helpful if members of this WikiProject could provide their input. The addition I've written includes discussion of the news coverage and ongoing debate surrounding what has become known as "Taxmageddon", and I believe this may be of interest to editors here. I haven't added it into the article yet because a source I've used is from The Heritage Foundation, where I work, so I would prefer to have some feedback, if possible. Thanks! ] (]) 19:22, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
:I'll take a look. &ndash; ] <sup>(])</sup> 07:28, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

== Urgent: Krista Branch GA ==

] has been up for GA for over 3 months and urgently needs a reviewer. She is known for "I am America" which is the anthem of the TEA Party. Do you need any more motivation than that? If anyone has GA experience please click here: ]. Let's git er done! &ndash; ] <sup>(])</sup> 07:38, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

== Current AfD nomination of ] ==

Hi folks. ] comfortably ] in May, but it has been ]. You may want to comment on the AfD and/or work on the article itself. Best, ] (]) 21:33, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

== "How right-wingers took over Misplaced Pages" ==

Contrary to the overwhelming consensus of the members of this wikiproject, it is the ''right wingers'' who are running this sanitarium, according to Marc McDonald. He writes, "Increasingly over the years, literally thousands of Misplaced Pages’s political articles have gradually and quietly been given a right-wing spin" and explains "the right-wing “contributors” are ferociously tenacious. They will go in and sanitize and slant an article over and over until it reads the way they want it to. These people are well-organized, ruthless and determined and they usually eventually get their way, via sheer blunt force." For evidence he offers the "sanitized" George Bush and what he describes as extremely unflattering Bill Clinton article. IMO Mr. McDonald should be blocked for fostering a WP:Battleground mentality. McDonald's ridiculous and irrational "analysis" makes fascinating reading. But the ''piece de resistance'' comes by way of the first post in the Reader Comments section (emph. mine):{{quotation|You don't know the half of it. The editors at '''WikiProject Conservatism''' have teamed up with the exiles and wikihaters at Wikipediocracy to oust administrators they think are too liberal. There's an ongoing effort to purge Misplaced Pages of liberal editors and entrap them in time consuming arbitration processes. This, along with off-site coordination of editors paid through advocacy groups like the Susan B. Anthony List has been steadily eroding Misplaced Pages's ability to remain an impartial resource. --Scarb}} My jaw dropped in disbelief when I read that. Maybe he should've interviewed LegitimateAndEvenCompelling, or NYYankees, or Haymaker, or any of the dozen other editors banned in the Abortion arbom case. Ironic to be sure. I'll paraphrase our VP and leave you with this 3-letter word: LMFAO. &ndash; ] <sup>(])</sup> 08:52, 15 July 2012 (UTC) <br>
PS: WTF is "Wikipediocracy?"


== ] ==
::Liberals tend to have a real talent for projection. This is a stunning example. Oh, and I found this: ] (]) 15:51, 15 July 2012 (UTC)


Would appreciate some eyes on this. Pasting what I wrote there for context:
==Proposal to change our logo==
{{Talk quote block|This article needs pruning, but I am unsure of where to begin, or what the end result should ultimately look like. If there is a policy for what "Political positions of ______" pages should look like, I am unaware of it (and would appreciate a link to). However, I think we can all agree that there is no reason why the article on Jeb Bush's political positions should be 605.99% larger than ].
]
I propose that we change our logo from Edmund Burke to the most ferrocious and tenacious animal on the planet, he's ruthless and determined and always gets his way, usually, I give you... the honey badger. LMFAO. &ndash; ] <sup>(])</sup> 08:52, 15 July 2012 (UTC)


Jeb Bush hasn't been in a position to directly influence American policy since leaving gubernatorial office in 2007. Since then, he had an infamously unsuccessful presidential campaign in 2016, has been involved with a number of ] (e.g. ], ], the ]), and occasionally contributes to media outlets as an op-ed columnist. This article gives ] weight to his stated positions on the 2016 campaign trail; eight years down the line and three presidential elections later, it is safe to say that they ultimately fail the ].
== Be careful with classifying parties as 'conservative' in non-western contexts ==


By the end of this discussion, I'd like to set up an outline for how the article should be restructured and discuss what should or should not remain. My immediate thoughts:
Hi there. I think this is a valuable project, but I do have one concern which I've seen a few times, which is the extension of 'conservatism' to countries with political systems very different from those in America and Europe. For example, I've seen political groups in Russia tagged as part of WikiProject Conservatism - but who are the 'conservatives' in modern Russia? Those who want to restore the Soviet Union? Supporters of Putin's government? Those who support right-wing politics in general? It's not obviously clear. Likewise, in countries like Egypt or Iran - does 'conservatism' refer to supporters of the old regime, or religious conservatives, or what? Taiwanese politics is based around the division between closer and further relations with China - who are the 'conservatives' there?
* I'd like to avoid splitting the article into sub-subsections unless absolutely necessary to avoid ].
* I believe the most weight should be given to his political positions during his tenure as governor, followed by his post-gubernatorial career as a lobbyist and op-ed columnist, followed by comments made on the 2016 campaign trail.
* Anything that did not influence public policy probably does not deserve a section unto itself. For example, his opinion on the Confederate flag, the name of the Washington Commanders (né Redskins), or his comments about the "French workweek" seem particularly superfluous.
Discuss.|id=c-Kodiak Blackjack-20241109205200-UTC}}
— <span style="font-family:Oxygen">] (]) • (])</span> 00:43, 10 November 2024 (UTC)


== Requested move at ] ==
All I'm asking for a little restraint in tagging people and groups as part of this project. Not every country has a political system like that of the United States, and not every political system has a faction that corresponds to what we think of as 'conservatism'. I'm not saying this template can't be used to tag groups outside of the US and Europe, but think carefully before you do. ] (]) 15:05, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
] There is a requested move discussion at ] that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. ] (]) 22:07, 19 November 2024 (UTC)


== Good article reassessment for ] ==
:I agree. Conservatism can be defined as contextual, in which case every country has conservatives. Or it can be defined as an ideology with specific principles, in which case it is limited to Western Europe and countries that have copied European conservatism. Specifically they are parties that developed out of a royalist or aristocratic reaction to liberalism. I believe though that both Putin's party and the KMT consider themselves conservatives. However I see no reason to include liberal, religious, post-communist, nationalist or other parties that do not consider themselves conservatives. ] (]) 13:56, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
] has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the ]. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. ] (]) 22:38, 21 November 2024 (UTC)


== Good article reassessment for ] ==
::Your beliefs are errant. Putin does ''not'' call himself "conservative" nor did the KMT call itself "conservative". They are both "nationalist". That does not make ''either'' example "conservative." All of which misses the point - any project "interested" in an article is free, on Misplaced Pages, to tag that article as being one of interest to that project. It does ''not'' make the subject of the article "conservative" as in this case. And such a tag can be discussed here, and is subject to consensus here. ] (]) 14:25, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
] has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the ]. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. ] (]) 01:17, 1 December 2024 (UTC)


==Technical problems? Just approach me!==
:::"At its most recent national convention in St. Petersburg in November 2009, Vladimir Putin's United Russia described itself again as a conservative party. Officially, it stands for the country's heritage and its values." See the Greenwood ''History of China'' entry for the KMT: "politically conservative". ] (]) 15:32, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
<!-- START PIN -->{{Pin message|13:06, 16 August 2032 (UTC)}}<!-- ] 13:06, 20 January 2026 (UTC) -->{{User:ClueBot III/DoNotArchiveUntil|1768914386}}<!-- END PIN -->
Hello, I now seem to have become the sole proprietor of this glorious WikiProject. I did some interesting experimental work (*note, e.g. the multiple watchlists on the project page) that I can't be bothered to fully explain right now.


Since I am considering to retire my account indefinitely and focus on my studies, simply writing me an email would be even better than posting on my talk page! (click {{Mail|ChopinAficionado}} to do just that; and don't be shy)
::::Your "conservative Putin" nationalised some industries. Not "conservative" AFAICT, except as you note in being ''nationalist''. '''Which I already accepted.''' The KMT is now labelled "conservative" mainly in its stance on nationalism also. '''Again - I ''said'' that already.''' calls the KMT "centre-right" which is a very broad area. The Economist says the KMT had a substantial shift in 2001 to reunificationism, which is unlikely to be viewed as "conservative." In short, Houston, we have a problem in trying to use "political spectrums" as contant in any sense of the word. ] (]) 19:10, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
:::::I am having difficulty following your criteria for inclusion. You vote to include the liberal ] and the right-wing extremist ] because someone once called them that, yet exclude other parties. Actually nationalization of industry can be conservative, Bismarck nationalized industry. ] (]) 19:58, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
::::::I have ''no'' "criteria for inclusion." I have made no such "votes." I suggest that inclusion is entirely up to the people here, using ] and nothing more. I assert nothing about what I "know" to be the "truth" - I suggest that the way Wikiprojects work is by doing what CONSENSUS dictates, not by me giving some sily "criteria" which I would impose on this project. Cheers. ] (]) 21:12, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
:::::::Consensus only comes about ''after'' editors requested something be included/excluded. Are you saying that you have no criteria for requesting inclusion/exclusion ''before'' consensus is reached? Or do you have criteria for your decisions? ] (]) 17:06, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
::::::::You claimed I have made "votes" here to include some particular party. I assert that my position has been, and remains, that it is up to ] and not any "votes" as to what should be part of the project and what should not be part of the project. Is there some actual ''reason'' for your iterated queries here? ] (]) 20:48, 21 July 2012 (UTC)


Best wishes, ] (]) 13:06, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
== Major change to socially conservative orgs & people ==


:They are banned. They cannot help. ] (]) 12:22, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
An editor is changing the ledes of pro-family/pro-life articles from "]" to "]." I've reverted where the new sentence is ungrammatical, but left the others for the time being. IMO the "social conservatism" article is the better wikilink because it best describes the orgs & people at issue. Other thoughts? &ndash; ] <sup>(])</sup> 10:20, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
: By ungrammatical i presume you mean the instances where traditional value had an "s" at the end. Is that what you meant? ] ] 10:29, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
:: Btw, i wouldn't have reverted you if i felt you were not stalking my edits. But you're behavior in the past has clearly shown you are stalking me. ] ] 10:35, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
:::You do realize that you just confessed to ]y editing? Reverting based on retaliation is disruptive. &ndash; ] <sup>(])</sup> 10:47, 20 July 2012 (UTC)


== Good article reassessment for ] ==
:::: I did not revert based on retaliation. I simply have a low faith in your editing ability because of some of your past behaviors (including stalking). This is why i give less consideration to your opinion. Thats not retaliatory editing. ] ] 10:56, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
] has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the ]. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. ] (]) 17:55, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
:::::Guess what... after your little stunt of unilaterally renaming all of the "Homosexuality and " articles there are probably about a dozen editors "stalking" you. Hmmm... and here you are again ''unilaterally'' making major changes to articles. I guess you didn't learn your lesson the last time. And btw, before you accuse someone of "stalking" maybe you should read WP:HOUND so you will know what you are talking about.&ndash; ] <sup>(])</sup> 11:13, 20 July 2012 (UTC)


== ] article needs more work on it. ==
:::::: I havent noticed stalking from anyone but you so stop trying to divert attention from yourself . In fact, at one point recently i was thinking of leaving a note on your talk page about it again but i thought i would give you the benefit of the doubt and avoud a message on your talk page. But once again today, you show up today. From now on i will propose for you to avoid interacting with me and i will do the same. This way you can prove that you are not in fact stalking me. In case we do happen to incidentaly interact, you can instead leave a message on my talk page or on a wikiproject about my edit. The next time you show up at my edits i will post about it on a noticeboard. ] ] 12:54, 20 July 2012 (UTC)


It would be helpful is someone could add more information and expand the article in general. '''My List:'''
::::::: As for major changes, i dont see how changing a term with a synonymous one can be considered a "major change". ] ] 13:03, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
*Expand the heading.
::::::::If it were "synonymous" it would lead to the same article. It doesn't, therefore is not "synonymous" by Misplaced Pages usage. ] (]) 14:13, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
*Add information about the unique Cultural history of nationalism in Norway.
*More information about the ]
*The ] and ] during the ] and ].
*The ].
*The ], ] and minor information about the ].
] (]) 07:37, 1 January 2025 (UTC)

Latest revision as of 12:22, 7 January 2025

This project page does not require a rating on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject iconConservatism
WikiProject iconThis page is within the scope of WikiProject Conservatism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of conservatism on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ConservatismWikipedia:WikiProject ConservatismTemplate:WikiProject ConservatismConservatism

WikiProject Conservatism
Discussion
Alerts
Assessment
Showcase
Resources


Have a question? Just ask

Archives


Banners

Shortcut

Welcome to the Discussion page for WikiProject Conservatism. Here you can find discussions, notices, and requests for articles that deal with conservatism. If you would like to discuss, place a notice about, or if you have a request about, an article within the scope of this project, please include it here. Note that posting here in order to try to recruit editors with a particular political point of view is contrary to the intent of this project. Make sure to keep up-to-date on happenings at the project Watch


Talk:Political positions of Jeb Bush#Article size, structure, and focus

Would appreciate some eyes on this. Pasting what I wrote there for context:

This article needs pruning, but I am unsure of where to begin, or what the end result should ultimately look like. If there is a policy for what "Political positions of ______" pages should look like, I am unaware of it (and would appreciate a link to). However, I think we can all agree that there is no reason why the article on Jeb Bush's political positions should be 605.99% larger than his brother's.

Jeb Bush hasn't been in a position to directly influence American policy since leaving gubernatorial office in 2007. Since then, he had an infamously unsuccessful presidential campaign in 2016, has been involved with a number of lobbyist groups (e.g. Foundation for Excellence in Education, United Against Nuclear Iran, the James Madison Institute), and occasionally contributes to media outlets as an op-ed columnist. This article gives WP:UNDUE weight to his stated positions on the 2016 campaign trail; eight years down the line and three presidential elections later, it is safe to say that they ultimately fail the WP:10YEARTEST.

By the end of this discussion, I'd like to set up an outline for how the article should be restructured and discuss what should or should not remain. My immediate thoughts:

  • I'd like to avoid splitting the article into sub-subsections unless absolutely necessary to avoid MOS:OVERSECTION.
  • I believe the most weight should be given to his political positions during his tenure as governor, followed by his post-gubernatorial career as a lobbyist and op-ed columnist, followed by comments made on the 2016 campaign trail.
  • Anything that did not influence public policy probably does not deserve a section unto itself. For example, his opinion on the Confederate flag, the name of the Washington Commanders (né Redskins), or his comments about the "French workweek" seem particularly superfluous.

Discuss.
— User:Kodiak Blackjack 20:52, 9 November 2024 (UTC)

— Kodiak Blackjack (talk) • (contribs) 00:43, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Muhammad Zia-ul-Haq#Requested move 8 November 2024

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Muhammad Zia-ul-Haq#Requested move 8 November 2024 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. 𝚈𝚘𝚟𝚝 (𝚝𝚊𝚕𝚔𝚟𝚝) 22:07, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

Good article reassessment for Dick Cheney

Dick Cheney has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. Z1720 (talk) 22:38, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

Good article reassessment for James Cagney

James Cagney has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. Z1720 (talk) 01:17, 1 December 2024 (UTC)

Technical problems? Just approach me!

This section is pinned and will not be automatically archived until 13:06, 16 August 2032 (UTC).

Hello, I now seem to have become the sole proprietor of this glorious WikiProject. I did some interesting experimental work (*note, e.g. the multiple watchlists on the project page) that I can't be bothered to fully explain right now.

Since I am considering to retire my account indefinitely and focus on my studies, simply writing me an email would be even better than posting on my talk page! (click mail ChopinAficionado to do just that; and don't be shy)

Best wishes, ChopinAficionado (talk) 13:06, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

They are banned. They cannot help. 89.242.145.133 (talk) 12:22, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

Good article reassessment for Mitch Daniels

Mitch Daniels has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. Z1720 (talk) 17:55, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

Norwegian nationalism article needs more work on it.

It would be helpful is someone could add more information and expand the article in general. My List:

Zyxrq (talk) 07:37, 1 January 2025 (UTC)

Categories: